Nearly 40 cyclists were issued £50 on-the-spot fines in Bolton last week as part of a police operation designed to encourage all road users to share the roads safely. One of those fined, who seemed unaware of the law he'd been consistently breaking over the years, described it as “political correctness gone mad.”
A series of initiatives undertaken last week by Greater Manchester Police (GMP) included tackling illegal and stolen caravans, dangerous driving and uninsured vehicles, and ensuring drivers are not under the influence of alcohol or drugs, or distracted by mobile phones.
They also carried out ‘Operation Grimaldi’ in Bolton town centre, targeting cyclists riding on pavements or in pedestrian zones such as Victoria Square.
That specific operation was billed as being aimed at reducing the number of collisions involving cyclists, as well as reminding them about the laws applying to riding bicycles, with 38 cyclists issued with fixed penalty notices – 27 on Friday, and a further 11 on Sunday, according to The Bolton News.
Riders caught breaking the law were given the option of avoiding the fine by attending a 45-minute cycle safety awareness course at Bolton Central Fire Station, with 13 attending a session on Friday, the newspaper adds.
Attendees were shown CCTV film with examples of dangerous riding, given advice on how to ride safely, and provided with a hi-viz jacket.
Officers taking part in that operation stopped and fined three motorists for illegally using mobile phones at the wheel. Each was fined £100 in accordance with the new fixed penalty rules introduced last week.
Each will also have their driving licence endorsed with three penalty points – something that is likely to result in them have to pay increased insurance premiums.
Ahead of Operation Grimaldi, Inspector Andy Sidebotham of Bolton Central Police Station, explained: “There’s a lot of people getting into cycling but they might not have had any training or been on a bike for years.
“It’s about challenging the behaviour. Most cyclists are really considerate but a small number are unaware of the law. And some don’t pay any attention to the law – they are the ones who will be targeted.”
Jim Battle, Greater Manchester’s deputy police and crime commissioner, said: “It’s really important that we improve road craft for drivers, pedestrians and cyclists. The worrying figure is 90 per cent of cyclists have no training whatsoever.”
Transport for Greater Manchester committee member Councillor David Chadwick added: “We at Bolton Council are always getting complaints about cyclists. I am a strong believer of education, it is the same for people in two wheels as it is for those on four.
“It might come as a shock to some of the people that they are being taken to task.”
One of the cyclists fined in Victoria Square on Friday was 45-year-old Alan Mulraney, who complained: “It’s political correctness gone mad, I’ve been riding my bike for 30 to 35 years and nothing like this has ever happened.
“I must have gone through the square countless times. A policeman came up to me and said you’re not allowed to ride your bike here, that’ll be a £50 fine. I’d never heard of this scheme I must admit and I thought it was wrong that they didn’t warn me at all.”
Following the end of the operation, traffic PCSO Gareth Walker was quoted by The Bolton News as saying: “We are pleased that we have enforced the road safety message for cyclists that don’t necessarily know what they are doing is wrong.
“It’s their choice whether they go to the road safety presentation or pay the fixed penalty notice.
“At the road safety presentation, there have been people upset that the fine was £50, but they did have the choice to listen to the presentation and try to change their cycling habits and get the ticket cancelled.”
According to GMP, there were a total 46 deaths in its area as a result of road traffic collisions in the 11 months from June 2012 to May 2013, compared to 59 in the same period in the previous year, a statistic they say is down to ongoing clampdowns on illegal road behaviour.
Since March last year, those have been co-ordinated under the umbrella of Operation Dice, and speaking about last week’s initiatives, Inspector Matt Bailey-Smith said: ““This week is about highlighting the dangers of using the roads illegally and irresponsibly.
“We want to educate drivers, pedestrians, cyclists and motorcyclists about checking their speed, making sure seat belts are always worn, ensuring drivers are not under the influence of alcohol or drugs and they are not distracted by mobile phones or other electrical equipment.
He added: “We will be out this week clamping down on uninsured drivers, who are a risk to themselves and other road users, illegal or stolen caravans, plants and trailers being used on our motorway network and we will also be talking to and educating cyclists about riding safely, not running red lights and wearing the correct safety equipment.
“Our main objective is to see the number of killed and seriously injured on our roads continue to fall and to ensure the roads are safe for everyone.”
73 thoughts on ““Politcal correctness gone mad” – £50 fines issued to anti-social cyclists in Bolton”
How many pedestrians were
How many pedestrians were fined?
In my mind there’s always
In my mind there’s always been a difference between cyclists and people who ride bikes. Cyclists are responsible and follow the highway code, whereas people who ride bikes pretty much think the rules don’t apply to them.
jgmacca wrote:In my mind
Are you 5 years old or something?
Agree. I’ve been making the
Agree. I’ve been making the same distinction for years.
Trouble is there aren’t any
Trouble is there aren’t any offences pedestrians can commit, so they can’t be fined.
Be interesting to see what GMP do with cyclists not wearing “the correct safety equipment.” What is that safety equipment and what requirement is there to wear it?
Fools.
personally I don’t ride on
personally I don’t ride on the pavement but if I did Id take the fine and tell ’em where to stick their ‘awareness’ training.
I’m all for better skilled riders but this smacks of an easy way to get money
keirik wrote:personally I
only from numpty riders think they are better than receiving advice and insist on paying, like err… you!
..
..
STATO wrote:keirik
only from numpty riders think they are better than receiving advice and insist on paying, like err… you!— keirik
Fewer insults and more reading please. Keirik doesn’t need advice, s/he doesn’t ride on the pavement.
Now, I’d like you to put on your special flourescent internet bib every time you sit down to type in an insult on road.cc.
keirik wrote:personally I
Free hi-vis jacket. If it’s a reasonable quality one which pavement do I cycle on 😉
– Richard (trained cycle responder, so done enough of the training already)
Stuff like this misses the
Stuff like this misses the point that anti-social driving is main reason for people ride on pavement. Tackle the cause, not the symptom.
Also, Local Authorities with proliferation of semi-random stretches of pavement converted to shared use reinforces the view pavement cycling is OK and legal. Or the fact that you often need to cycle a short stretch on a pavement to get from a “proper” cycle path to a dropped kerb.
There was Home Office guidance that cycling on pavements should be ignored UNLESS it was causing a hazard to others.
I assume as well the Police have been fining all the cars parking on pavements in Bolton. If not why not?
I done a
I done a GRRRR
I’m kind of on the fence on
I’m kind of on the fence on this as a whole (I’m a bit of a law-abiding stickler on the road, whether two wheels or four), but what really hacks me off is the handing out of hi-vis vests.
It’s stupid and vaguely fascist to force free people to wear special clothing without a genuinely compelling reason. Follow the logic – why then aren’t all cars given a luminous yellow paint job? Why don’t pedestrians have to done the orange & reflective roadworker gilets at a zebra crossing?
X(
Quote:Stuff like this misses
This ^^.
Why do people ride on the pavement?
cos the roads are dangerous
Why do cyclists jump red lights?
cos the junctions are badly designed
Sort out the dangerous driving, the rest falls into place. Or have the police not learnt their lesson from London – fining cyclists for riding along a bus-only lane, cyclists go the long (and dangerous) way round to avoid it, one dies under the wheels of a tipper truck. 🙁
crazy-legs wrote:
Why do
That might be why most people ride on the pavements but I strongly suspect the real reason most people jump reds is because they can’t be ar$ed to wait.
Chuck wrote:crazy-legs
That might be why most people ride on the pavements but I strongly suspect the real reason most people jump reds is because they can’t be ar$ed to wait.— crazy-legs
Let’s be honest some cyclists jump red lights to save the energy of slowing to a stop and then having to start off again. It is much easier to simply keep going if, and only if, it is safe to do so. No intelligent cyclist, given their own vulnerability is going to jump a red light if it is not completely safe to do so. For those that are particularly stupid and go through them when not safe then they cannot expect any sympathy if they get splatted.
CStar wrote:For those that
If only things were that simple 🙂
A while ago there was a case involving a cyclist who was injured at a traffic light-controlled junction in a collision with a taxi. The cyclist had jumped a red light.
(You’re banging the gavel here, right?)
The taxi, however, was speeding and thus may well have (a) arrived at the junction much more quickly than the cyclist may have expected in terms of an event horizon when jumping the light and (b) been less able to avoid a collision.
The case was complex, of course, because both parties had committed offences and were thus attributed blame; but it had to be decided what balance of responsibility was correct.
You may still say the cyclist is fully responsible and deserves no sympathy, of course, and that’s a tenable view. But it’s worth noting that once you start mixing other people’s misdemeanours into the equation, a decision that seemed safe can quickly become unsafe. Obviously, it’s one good reason to err on the side of caution; but nevertheless, few things are black and white.
Owen rodgers re the correct
Owen rodgers re the correct safety equipment – it does now state in rule 59 of the highway code what cyclist should wear- it is advisory as apposed to mandatory but I think this is where they are coming from
The other interesting quote is that 90% of cyclists don’t have training- currently the law doesn’t require them to – now there is an argument, which I agree with, that cycling training should be taught in school as part of wider road safety education but it does seem wrong to target a group for not having training when it isn’t legally required and fining them -I mean what percentage of pedestrians have had training ??? Will the police be targeting them?
Firstly can I say if cyclist
Firstly can I say if cyclist are riding in a manner which endangers pedestrians in a shared space they deserve to be fined.
However I am a little confused reading this story as from a cyclist point of view in some pedestrianized zones – cycling is allowed and in others it isn’t so it can be confusing. In fact in this pdf from cycling England it names the areas where it is allowed and parts of Bolton are named ( I don’t know Bolton so have no idea if the area mentioned in the pdf is the one in this article)
http://www.ciltuk.org.uk/Portals/0/Documents/The%20Hub/infrastructure/Cycling_in_Pedestrian_Areas.pdf
Even if they are not from reading the article it seems to be normal behaviour to ride on this pedestrianized area – The question I have is it clearly signed that cycling isn’t allowed if yes then fair cop. Also fair cop if cycling to fast or you are behaving aggressively to other users.
But this is where it gets interesting as the department of transport recommendation is that cyclist should be allowed in pedestrian area.
http://www.ukroads.org/webfiles/LTN%202-04%20Adjacent%20and%20Shared%20Use%20Facilities%20for%20Pedestrians%20and%20Cyclists.pdf
The link above takes you to the pdf and the details are in section 8.2. – but section 8.2.1 states:-
“Cyclists often need access to pedestrianised areas to reach their workplace, shops or other destinations. Studies by Transport Research Laboratory have shown that
there are no real factors to justify excluding cyclists from pedestrianised areas ”
With this in mind if people are cycling safely across the zone it does appear pedantic at best to fine the cyclists if their only offence is cycling in a pedestrian zone.
I am also interested in the councillor’s quote about taking action after numerous complaints against cyclist – Our village has made numerous complaints about speeding motorists but while both the council and the police tell us that they agree they state they have no resource to take action. One rule….?
marobertson wrote:
But this
but nobody is stopping them from wheeling their bicycles and walking – along with the other walking pedestrians?
Or am I missing something?
didds
Lets see the complaining
Lets see the complaining guilty party is pretty much my age, I grew up knowing bikes belong on the road and not pavement as did everyone else I know. It only seems the last 10 or 15 years so many people seem to think it is OK to ride on the pavement to the extent I’ve seen what can only be described as pavement rage from some of them when pedestrians dare to impede their progress! Just like the red light jumpers another bunch of idiots giving us all a bad name!
A quick google shows the
A quick google shows the cyclists weren’t cycling “on the pavement” as such but across a large pedestrian municipal square.
So basically Plod has targeted the easiest spot in which to nab as many cyclists as possible taking a short-cut.
Contrast that with their sterling efforts in catching a paltry 3 mobile phone drivers.
I hope they didn’t work too hard as they’ve achieved sod all.
Used to work in Sale, down
Used to work in Sale, down the road from sunny Bolton, and the number of [i]people on bikes*[/i] in the pedestrianised shopping area was scary. Blue signs indicating no cycling were scattered all over the place, and still they were swerving round old age pensioners and parents with small children.
Didn’t say anything at the time, I’m older and a bit more militant now. So really don’t have a problem with Manc Plod coming down on them like a ton of bricks (even then they were offered the alternative of a cycling safety course, something I’d expect to pay for).
* sticks in the craw to call them cyclists.
The highway code makes it
The highway code makes it very clear… you’re not allowed to ride on pavements, and must must obey traffic signals I.e. stop at red lights, even if the way ahead is clear. It’s not rocket sience is it?
Generally cyclists obey these rules of the road, “people who ride bikes” have a tendancy not to. They need some education, for some of them paying a £50 fine a few times is probably the only type of “training” they are bright enough to understand.
Anyone using the road should be aware of the highway code, including pedestrians!
Ignorance is not a justified defense in my opinion! So pay up, shut up, and stay off the pavements, and when required STOP AT RED LIGHTS! Then you can complain about careles motorists with a clear consience! 😕 !
Your man Alan Mulraney
Your man Alan Mulraney doesn’t seem like the sharpest tool in the box does he? How is this “political correctness?”
Lacking in perspective? Yes. But politically correct? Not quite.
The worrying figure is 90 per
The worrying figure is 90 per cent of cyclists have no training whatsoever.”
Yeah, they just figured out how to ride a bike unaided? Or don’t friends and family count for the police? OK, it’s not the best training but it’s still training.
Also, blue and white signs (comment above) are informative. No cycling signs are red, white and black.
Funny thing is the three
Funny thing is the three safest countries to ride in, the Netherlands, Denmark and Sweden, seem not to differentiate between a bike lane and a pedestrian walkway. All seem to share with apparently not too many accidents.
I must admit though that they have no problem getting off and walking through city squares, etc when there are alot of people about.
Pjrob wrote:Funny thing is
I’ve only cycled in two of those, the Netherlands and Sweden, but they DEFINITELY differentiate between a bike lane and a pedestrian walkway. In the Netherlands there are mandatory bike lanes where you’re not allowed to ride on the road (as there are in Belgium) and they’re clearly separated from the pedestrian walkways. Also, bike lanes are either one-way or usually have a clear line down the middle; you ride on the right side of the lane or you have cyclists riding straight towards you because you’re in the wrong.
Again, as with many articles about “cyclists”, no differentiation is made between an idiot riding a bike and the average mostly law-abiding road cyclist. To be honest, I wish the police spent more time stopping and fining the chavs who ride up and down the pavement on their terrible wrecks, or the dicks who think they’re so much more important than anyone else that they can ignore red lights.
Not sure how fining cyclists
Not sure how fining cyclists or anyone really for breaking the law is “political correctness gone mad”.
And on another note, if you find roads dangerous to ride on, or junctions “badly designed”, that’s not a legitimate reason to break the law by riding on the pavement or jumping red lights. If it’s that bad then don’t cycle that route. Or get better at cycling, since realistically it’s not that difficult to ride safely within the confines of the law.
eurotrash wrote:Not sure how
It’s often a misuse of resources, picking on the easy target to be seen to do something, rather than target the bigger dangers of RLJing and mobile phoney drivers. Were there really only 3 of them in that city centre while they were fining 38 cyclists? Let’s target resources in proportion to the potential for harm, please!
“I should stress that the issue is about inconsiderate cycling on the pavements. The new provisions are not aimed at responsible cyclists who sometimes feel obliged to use the pavement out of fear of the traffic, and who show consideration to other road users when doing so. Chief officers recognise that the fixed penalty needs to be used with a considerable degree of discretion and it cannot be issued to anyone under the age of 16.” (Letter to Mr H. Peel from John Crozier of The Home Office, reference T5080/4, 23 February 2004)
eurotrash wrote:If it’s that
This is true if you are experienced, fast, not carrying shopping, don’t have a bad back, are very confident, are not towing a child, are happy to break into heavy sweat, able to accelerate to 20mph in under 100m, can hold a high speed up a hill, can look around you fully without any wobble to the bike, and are generally happy with the basic principle of being surrounded by vehicles that have at least 100 times as much kinetic energy as you, if not much more.
But for anyone else, that’s utterly boneheaded “advice”.
What next, women should just walk their most direct route home in the dead of night, no matter how dangerous that is, and if they feel scared they should “get better at running”?
Not everyone is a Mamil. Why should people have to ride like Cavendish just to get to work?
Quote:If it’s that bad then
Heard it all now.
Who the hell designed that
Who the hell designed that Dicing With Death poster?!!
I just don’t understand why people in the UK accept this rubbish, anyone who doesn’t see the ‘political correctness’ argument must be already brainwashed into believing the spinning suits who churn out the same ‘it’s for your own good’ poop.
WAKE UP and watch what’s left of your freedom disappear into the state bank account, or just shut up & let the rest of us live a life worth living whilst you read the highway code as a bedtime treat.
Can we have some fines handed
Can we have some fines handed out to pedestrians aimlessly walking into the road whilst on their mobile phone or listening to music through their headphones!!!!
They are also a DANGER to others
Marky Legs wrote:Can we have
A recent development in London is pedestrians walking out who don’t even have the “excuse” of being on the phone or lost in music. There is a set of temporary bollards outside Buckingham Palace in the middle of the road resulting in bizarre lines of pedestrians crossing between two nearby light controlled pedestrian crossings. The presence of taxis doesn’t daunt them and cyclists are mere detail. This doesn’t just happen on occasion but all day every day.
Just one point on the ‘money
Just one point on the ‘money making exercise’. It probably costs more to issue and administer these fines than they collect in fines.
I have no problem with them as available tools for law enforcement (in fact, I would imagine they work rather well) but I’m not sure that they will ever turn a profit on them.
Cruel but fair!
Cruel but fair!
If they introduced this in
If they introduced this in the West Midlands they’d have to fine all the ‘cycling’ PSOs and police officers – they cycle through all the no-cycling zones with complete impunity, what an example to set!
“Our main objective is to see
“Our main objective is to see the number of killed and seriously injured on our roads continue to fall and to ensure the roads are safe for everyone.” How does tackling cyclists achieve their stated objective? The answer is it doesn’t. This is just the shouty ill informed public who moan on about lycra-louts to the PCC who then takes action in order to get votes. People should not be prosecuted or impeded in any way just for politically motivated nonsense.
What Bez said + about
What Bez said + about 1,000,000.
It’s dead easy to stop a cyclist. They’re not going that fast and, when stopped, they don’t cause any congestion. Chances are they’re breaking some kind of law, knowingly or otherwise – I mean, do you have amber pedal reflectors or wheel reflectors? Or maybe you’ve exceeded the stop line a bit.
So it’s dead easy to pull you over and fine you.
Much more difficult with cars. Stopping them invariably causes a traffic jam behind, there’s much more paperwork and it’s hard work for the average police officer.
So they go after the easy option. Good headlines (tackling the scourge of the lycra lout). If you go after motorists the headline is always “haven’t the police got better things to do than fine the hard-up, honest, down-to-earth, taxpaying motorist for petty infringements?”
Though it’s interesting that
Though it’s interesting that a lot of cyclists’ responses to this news have been along the lines of “haven’t the police got proper criminals to catch” etc.
As per the linked blog above, I think doing this stuff is fine as long as it’s (a) proportionate and (b) explained as addressing pedestrians’ perceived issues (which are often valid, take note) rather than as improving safety. Because the evidence suggests that they worsen safety.
Once the police dress it up as a safety thing, they really should be able to defend it with real data and they also have to understand that it instantly raises the issue of proportionality when compared to the massively greater risk of motoring offences.
Link again, which covers it: http://beyondthekerb.wordpress.com/2013/08/19/the-bolton-price-comparison-site/
I had one experience
I had one experience recently, and one a few years ago, which make me despair over the attitude towards cycling “safety” and the law in the UK.
Last week I rode with my 3 year old (on his bike) down some narrow lanes in France. One time it was fairly busy with cars, all trying to get in or out of parking spaces and squeeze past each other. Every single one of them gave us plenty of room and I didn’t ever feel he was any danger. The behaviour of the car drivers was absolutely one of sharing the road with cyclists, they waited, gave space, and were appreciative if you gave them space. Doing something similar in the UK would have given me kittens. Riding on my own the only cars that didn’t give me more-than-adequate room were Belgians… but I suspect as a nation of drivers (particularly when outside their own borders) they are beyond help.
A good few years ago I was in Berlin for SSWC. Over a week we rode around the city a lot, and a lot of that riding was actually on pavements amongst pedestrians. No one had an accident, no one minded that they were shoulder to shoulder with a bike, we didn’t get arrested, everyone was happy. If I’d done that through London on a busy Summer day the outcome would have been very different.
Enforcing these laws against cyclists without any real assessment of the risks and benefits does absolutely nothing to help road safety. IMO.
If you ride your bike in a
If you ride your bike in a pedestrianised zone you’re a di ckhead and deserve to be fined. If you feel unsafe riding on the roads because of drivers breaking the law, the answer isn’t to break the law yourself.
We’re all over drivers for being idiots and endangering cyclists, and quite right too, but cyclists endangering pedestrians by riding like idiots is no better.
colinth wrote:If you ride
So if I want to go for a bike ride with my 4-year-old, what do I do? I mean, he loves going to the shops in town on the bike, it’s good for us, it avoids adding to the holding pattern of cars circling the car park, it reduces noise and pollution, it avoids a whole heap of bad things that my car would otherwise be contributing to.
Fortunately we have a shared path for much of the way (which is far from ideal but is at least free of motor vehicles) but for the half-mile or so that I can’t use it, does keeping him out of the way of cars whilst I plod along at a leisurely pace make me a dickhead? I’m breaking the law, yes, but if I break that law in that way then no-one is even inconvenienced; whereas if drivers broke certain laws in certain ways my son might have a car on his head. I’m a dickhead? Really?
Don’t equate technically breaking the law with “riding like idiots” or “endangering pedestrians”.
Reply to Bez
Here’s something
Reply to Bez
Here’s something that will cheer you. According to the Met Bike squad you can ride with your son or daughter on the pavement as no one under 17 can legally ride or drive any vehicle on the road.
This came in handy when 2 panda hove in to view screetching to a stop 4 coppers got out and informed I was breaking the law by taking my 7 year old son home by bike. I informed them after a heated discussion and off they went.
Only to come back next day saying they weren’t going to prosecute me this time. Interesting hey.
What gets me is the cars are never told of for driving on pavements as they park – the law is used on too much of a one sided basis.
Ciaran Patrick
Sorry, is that:
a) a Met officer said to you that under-17s can’t ride on the road, and you disagree, or
b) you’re saying that under-17s can’t ride on the road?
If the latter, got a reference? I don’t believe it 🙂
Bez. I was at a London Bike
Bez. I was at a London Bike show where the Metropolitian Bike Squad had a stand. I asked them about cycling my 7 year son home. They informed me that it is perfectly alright to ride with your kids on the pavement providing you don’t cause a nuisance or worse to other users of that space.
I agree the interesting point is that (i think 17 may have been a bit old) but the definitely said that up a certain age kids are not allowed to ride any vehicle even self propelled vehicles on the road.
The point was proven when the 4 coppers in there cars had to admit I was doing nothing wrong by cycling my son home from school one day. We were not causing a nuisance and we stop and were polite of other users of that space. They came back a day later saying they were doing to let it go after I pursued the issue with them
The problem here is I think that pavements are not understood, the law and cyclists and road users understanding of what is the law here (me included) has become a bit of an Urban myth in terms of what is allowed.
For instance a car can park on a pavement if there is no parking restriction ie yellow lines to indiocate otherwise. This means where there are no restrictions you can drive and cycle on the pavement. This is a fact. What stops pavements being driven on is the restrictions applied by the local councils. the yellow and red lines. That is why in shopping centre’s there needs to be a specific detail on no cycling, skateboarding etc to indicate where you can and can’t ride.
This is where the confusion lies in understand whether you can or cannot ride on pavements. It also means that people like colinth assumes all pavements can’t be ridden on not true at all and this blanket belief the dictates all peoplke who ride on pavements are dickheads. As I said its the restrictions on the road also applied to the pavements.
I’ll remove dickhead because
I’ll remove dickhead because I dont want this to sound personal (although people who ride fast on the pavement are absolutely dickheads)
You can’t claim that it’s OK to break the law because it’s convenient. You’ve said it’s only half a mile to town after the shared use path so why not lock the bike up and walk ? Saying nobody is inconvienced makes as much sense as drivers who say they should be allowed to drive at 100mph at night because there’s nobody else around.
There are more ways to reduce pollution etc than just cycling, walk, public transport etc. Saying it’s bike all the way or nothing is akin to drivers who claim the same thing about their cars.
Cycle when it’s safe and legal, do something else when its not
colinth wrote:You can’t claim
And I didn’t. I claimed that it was far more acceptable to me than the risks I perceive in riding on the road. The argument I was specifically making was relating to safety, not convenience.
Again, I didn’t. The bit where I have to choose between road and pavement is at my end, not the far end.
No, it’s like saying that nobody is inconvenienced by drivers driving around at jogging pace and coming to a complete stop when there is a pedestrian in front of them. Your analogy would broadly relate to me riding at top speed through the shopping mall at 3am, which isn’t what I’m talking about at all.
Ok, how do I get into town and get some shopping home whilst reducing pollution compared to my car, without cycling, walking or (and this one isn’t an option in my case) using public transport? What do I do, trampoline? Dig a tunnel? It’s not “bike or nothing”, I drive and walk as well, but that’s not really the point.
Well, sure, but that leaves us all driving cars 3km into town, queuing up for car parks, and all that jazz. If you’re happy to live in towns and villages overrun by circling traffic and parked cars and if you’re happy with people being obese because they’re spending their time sitting in a box waiting for a parking space instead of exercising and if you’re happy to bring up kids with them thinking that the only way to get anywhere is a car then that’s fine; but personally I’m not happy with any of that and, although I do drive into town sometimes, I’d quite like to do a bit to get my boy out doing some exercise and seeing the world through something other than an electric window and a booster seat.
If we all just give in because the roads are dangerous and the pavements are illegal and the cycle paths aren’t joined up and mostly aren’t even safe anyway then we all end up in cars, all the time. We go nowhere. No-one builds more cycle facilities because there aren’t any more cyclists, we just build more roads. Our town centres full up with car parks, our roads become car parks, our pavements become car parks, our shops move to motorway junctions, our homes are divided from those of our neighbours by a game of real-world Frogger, our air becomes carcinogenic, all bit by bit because we say you can’t cycle anywhere unless you can ride as fast as a car and indicate like a car and walk away from a crash like the driver of a car.
You can’t say “cycle only when it’s safe and legal” and expect anyone to ever cycle in this country, because much of the time legal is not safe and safe is not legal.
Screw that. I’m taking my boy on the pavement. I’m giving way to absolutely everyone doing it, but I’m doing it.
colinth wrote:You can’t claim
Actually, I think it’s more like drivers who say they should be allowed to drive right up to car parking spaces and not have to obey those pesky “DRIVERS ALIGHT” signs.
Oh yeah. That’s exactly what happens, isn’t it? So why is it reasonable to expect people on bicycles to suffer the humiliation of pushing their vehicles the last bit to their destinations, while things get made so easy for the great car?
We need a step change: open almost all one way streets to contraflow cycling, allow access to any pedestrian zone with bicycle parking (including those in Bolton) and generally make cycling at least as easy as driving for the user.
I particularly like the picture in the Bolton News article showing several trucks just up the road past the No Cycling sign. But hey, what did we expect from Bolton? Bolton Town Hall is on Le Mans Crescent, after all.
colinth wrote:I’ll remove
Tha is the most narrow minded attitude I have ever heard. My Mother is German and from experince generally all road users get on and tolerate each other.
Calling us dickheads for taking on sons and daughters home by bike why should Bev and myself not ride with our children. She’s not bothering anyone, neither am I. Maybe we should just say to the 4 year old just sit there everything else is too dangerous. Rubbish. I do not want to see my child laid out on a slab because you think that is what the law wants to see. I will use my common sense and make decisions whats best for me and not annoying other road users in the process
The bottom line are we affecting other users of the space we ride in. What about pedestrians who walk in the road rather than walk on the pavement and cause a nuisance. I believe this is called Jay walking, but is tolerated. Why do they do this. I also like watching Danny Macskill doing all those urban tracks and stunts on his bike, this is done mainly on non road areas. He has never hurt or been trouble to anyone on these surfaces. Some pavements you can ride on some you can’t.
Why this draconian problems with pavements. If however you ride like an idiot any where you should be pulled up and sorted out.
If there’s a shared use path
If there’s a shared use path to town, apart from the half mile from your house to the path, why cycle on the pavement at all ? Walk the half mile and cycle the rest, not sure what your problem with walking half a mile is.
You seem to be saying it’s cycle on the pavement or I drive, personally I never cycle on the pavement, very rarely drive and seem to get around just fine.
I cycle on the road, if I take my kids with me and I don’t want them to cycle on a dangerous road we walk.If I have a big load to carry we drive. Simple really
OK, we’re over-focusing on
OK, we’re over-focusing on one very specific set of circumstances.
Walking for that stretch would add about ten minutes to each direction. Bit of a pain but let’s skip over it for now. I’d have to push a bike, towing another bike, laden with panniers of shopping, whilst keeping adequate control over a 4-year-old that I can at least grab him if he does something stupid. The pavement’s not really wide enough for two people side by side, let alone the bike as well, and pushing that lot with one hand isn’t doable. Walking isn’t viable.
So yes, it’s cycle on the pavement, cycle on the road, or drive. I’ve chosen all three at different times. I don’t cycle on that bit of road any more when I’m with the boy: the junction with the shared path is on a blind bend and I’ve seen two overturned vehicle on that road (despite it being a 30mph limit).
So, as I say, what you’re saying makes sense; but what you’re saying is drive. (Or walk 6km with a 4-year-old and a load of shopping – no thanks.) Drive. Only ever drive. Everywhere. Most people in our town must only ever drive.
I dunno. I’d just like a town where I can go shopping on a bike without fearing for my son’s safety. A few hundred yards on the pavement doesn’t seem a big deal.
You know what, too? I get to say hello and be super-courteous to other people on the pavement. We often have a joke and a smile. It’s people interacting, moving slowly, without the walls of steel and glass. I get to fight the perception that cyclists are inconsiderate wankers. I can turn pavement cycling into a PR exercise.
I don’t think shared space works for mass transit, but – hell – I’d much rather live in a place where people on foot and people on bikes mingle and interact somehow, than one where people walk from their front door to their car and close themselves off and move around in total isolation.
So 80% of commuting cyclists
So 80% of commuting cyclists have a driving licence. And yet 90% of cyclists have “no training whatsoever”? Summat’s wrong somewhere.
Bikebikebike wrote:So 80% of
+1
Back to the article :
It
Back to the article :
It mentions “That specific operation was billed as being aimed at reducing the number of collisions involving cyclists”.
Further on it talks about 46 deaths from ROAD TRAFFIC COLLISIONS compared to 59 in the same period last year.
Nowhere does it mention how many were caused by cyclists, and more specifically, how many involved cyclist on pedestrian.
Clouding the issue with selective (and irrelevant) statistics comes to mind.
A story all about how they
A story all about how they managed to fine only 3 motorists (I see that many in the ASL every 30 seconds) and snared 40 cyclists? A smiling police chap, not a single care or complicated thought troubling him, and down the right hand column it’s story after story about car drivers killing cyclists.
They’re blaming the victims, picking on the outsider groups and we pay them their big money salaries for this patronising idiocy!
How did they manage to stop
How did they manage to stop and fine the cyclists? Stopping a moving bike could create a H&S problem.
Let me get this clear. The
Let me get this clear. The road traffic stats are improving because they are fining people riding bikes on pavements? I just don’t get the correlation there…
Its not “Politcal correctness
Its not “Politcal correctness gone mad” its “Health & Safety gone mad”
Thank you
The Riding on Pavements is a
The Riding on Pavements is a tricky one. I personally prefer riding on the roads.
I have ridden all my life, I run a bike shop and I was once an Art Director for a National cycle magazine. I have no objections to people cycle where ever provided they cause no trouble to any other road user.
I reckon that Danny Macskill if we arn’t allowed to ride on pavements he should in loads of trouble. Check this DVD out brilliant riding and skills.
Bikes are not cars, they can have access to spaces cars and motorbikes can’t. So why not express your bike skills on pavements and non road areas providing you are responsible and don’t trouble other users of these areas.
What about scooters, skateboarders and other self propeller vehicles etc where do they fit in to this debate.
Didds
Fundamentally I think
Didds
Fundamentally I think we agree.
As I have made clear in my post any cyclist who is cycling aggressively or endangering pedestrians deserves to be fined. And as you point out if the safest thing to do is to get off and push then that is what a cyclist should do. As advised by the department of transport in the link in my post
“When pedestrian density increases cyclists behave accordingly by slowing down, dismounting, or taking avoiding action as required.”
However as I also point out the department of transport states there are “no real factors to justify excluding cyclists from pedestrianised areas” In other words they think it is safe for cyclist to cycle in a shared area with pedestrians. This is reflected in the highway code where there is no legal statute banning cyclists from cycling in pedestrianised areas( only on pavements). The local authority may choice as is their right to create a local bye law- again as I point out against the department of transports advice –
But I disagree with this campaign if people are being fined just for cycling in a pedestrianized areas even if they are cycling responsibly and they are committing no other offense- This in my mind sets a precedent for all shared space with pedestrians and could see responsible cyclists excluded from shared paths such as sustran routes. There is no evidence presented in the article that anyone has been hurt in this square by a cyclist. We have an increasingly obese nation and should be encouraging people out of cars onto bikes by providing safe spaces to cycle which may be shared.
Sorry Ciaran but you’re not
Sorry Ciaran but you’re not correct on a couple of points.
It is illegal for anyone, regardless of age to cycle on the pavement. The Police not pursuing something doesn’t make it legal (surely we’ve learnt that as cyclists over the last few years)
The law states pavement at the side of the road, which is why councils put up signs in other areas, shopping centres, pedestrianised zones etc
You cannot commit a criminal offence under the age of 10, which is why kids are de facto allowed to cycle on the pavement. If you cycle with him, you’re breaking the law, fact. Whether a Police officer turns a blind eye is irrelevant to what is actually legal or not.
Parking on the pavement is not necessarily legal if there are no yellow lines. If the local council has not put any restrictions in place you can still be prosecuted for parking on the pavement if the police consider that you are causing an obstruction.
All people who ride on a pavement by the side of the road might not be dickheads, but they are breaking the law.
Lets face it there is a
Lets face it there is a simple way of avoiding the £50 ticket. Read the Highway Code and understand it then act on it.
This applies too drivers, motorcyclists, horse riders and dare I say it cyclists too.
freespirit1 wrote:Lets face
+1
Well said, we’re in danger of
Well said, we’re in danger of being very hypocritical. Happy to use the law to defend ourselves but then some want to break it and say “what harm is it doing”. Leaves us wide open to drivers saying the same
colinth wrote:Well said,
I guess the answer to the drivers would be “2000+ innocent people being slaughtered on the roads through blunt trauma alone every year”.
Where as those nasty cylists saving more lives than they take what with their fitness and slimmness and lack of pollution and stuff.
My point being that it isn’t hypocracy it’s perspective.
It’s not Actium, it’s
It’s not Actium, it’s hypocrisy. We can’t shout the law and highway code at drivers and then ignore it ourselves. No cyclist is going to argue with your broader point about the overall benefit of cycling v driving, but if we are going to say “it’s OK to ignore the rules because…” then I’ll find you an equal number of drivers who think they’ve got an equally valid reason to break the law, and it’s just becomes a pointless argument between the two groups.
Far better that we stick to the rules, and put pressure on drivers to do the same because if they did, we wouldn’t need / want to use the pavement at all
I am not in favour of cycling
I am not in favour of cycling on pavements or breaking the rules of the road, but these police “crackdowns” lack any sense of perspective. There’s carnage on the roads, but lets pick on the cyclists who are pootling along on a pedestranised area. Breaking the law? – Yes, but not contributing to the safety issues that the police seem to claim they are addressing. I think a sense of perspective is definately what is missing so we will have to continue to disagree I’m afraid.
Actium, they’ve spent a lot
Actium, they’ve spent a lot more time on driver specific crackdowns over the last couple of months than cycling.
“A series of initiatives undertaken last week by Greater Manchester Police (GMP) included tackling illegal and stolen caravans, dangerous driving and uninsured vehicles, and ensuring drivers are not under the influence of alcohol or drugs, or distracted by mobile phones.”
One day on cyclists, the rest on drivers. Seems perfectly fair and reasonable to me
I like to point out that the
I like to point out that the email says “Bradford” and the article “Bolton”. Which are, err, 40 odd miles apart!
The thing that rubs me the
The thing that rubs me the wrong way about these sort of crackdowns is that there is an absolutle lack of clarity re. where you can and cannot cycle in most towns. In the town where I live there are many areas where cyclists are encouraged onto the pavement to use shared use lanes or segregated lanes. The town park has a shared use path running right through it but also has a by-law stating that cycling is prohibited (as it is in the park where our skatepark is located). Signage is often poor and infrastructure poorly thought out making it difficult to re-join the main caridgway when shared paths etc. end. Most people just carry on along the pavement which is understandable when faced with the prospect of merging into three lanes of traffic. It’s totaly confusing, particually for the uninitiated. One way systems that send you half way round town also encourage bad behaviour.
It’s also worth noting that, due to the lack of thought in applying a lot of cycle restrictions, it can often be more considerate to cycle in pedestrianised areas rather than walk your bike. For instance there is a long and narrow allyway by my house where cycling is forbidden. If I walk though with my bike nobody can pass in the opposite direction and they have to wait for me to arrive at the other end. If I hop on and cycle they still can’t pass but I’m out of their way much more quickly. I could stubonly obey the rules and keep them waiting I suppose.
I’m not advocating law-breaking and as confident road riders its easy to think that its all good to mix it with whatever other traffic is about on any sort of road but its not that simple for all cyclists. Sometimes the choices are a)cycle on the pavement or b) get in the car. Try sticking a child seat on your bike and strapping a cargo trailer on the back full of shopping and then ride back from the shops with another child on thier own bike without breaking the rules or constantly dismounting/re-mounting (this is not my personal situation, just an example). This sort of jouney should be the norm, not a logistical nightmare that sends you rushing for your car keys.
I’m rambling a bit here but my point is that we are set up to fail unless we are highly confident, competent and reasonaly fit. More needs to be done to encourage cycling and my view is that this sort of thing doesn’t help, unless clyclits are truly making a nusciece of themselves.
im Battle, Greater
im Battle, Greater Manchester’s deputy police and crime commissioner, said: “It’s really important that we improve road craft for drivers, pedestrians and cyclists.
I wonder if any pedestrians got fined in all of this, they are not as innocent as they would like to be seen